Barry Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Shot JR? Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not really anyone else's business, is it? Why doesn't the editor publish his own wage and bank balance if he thinks it's of public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Shot JR? Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not really anyone else's business, is it? Why doesn't the editor publish his own wage and bank balance if he thinks it's of public interest. Because HE's of no public interest! Shimples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Because HE's of no public interest! Shimples. No, I guess not. But if he's happy to publish the details of other people's finances, the least he could do is also publish his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristolCity1992 Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No, I guess not. But if he's happy to publish the details of other people's finances, the least he could do is also publish his own. They have to get their permission first it is a waste of time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmersonsKev Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't like these kind of things. They are all guess work, does the man not deserve any privacy at all? Yes he has lots of money but its all been earned through hard work. Steve enjoy your wealth but do not feel you have to pour it into BCFC willy nilly however if you wish to continue to grow the clubs infrastructure I have no problems with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 That's amazing. I mean I never knew they had bungalows in Clifton. He's not publishing anything which isn't in the public domain. Do you think the next time Jonathan Ross reviews a film that he should be obliged to describe one of his own home movies? So if it's in the public domain, why is anyone interested? A film made to be looked at by the public. Ridiculous analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zider_head Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 funny in todays sun he is worth 400 million, shows what crap these things really are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 funny in todays sun he is worth 400 million, shows what crap these things really are Ah, what's £30 million between friends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 So if it's in the public domain, why is anyone interested? I guess no-one may be interested. I'm certainly not. But you were suggesting that this person should publish his own finances since he has published Lansdown's. However, all he has done is collate information that is already in the public domain. A film made to be looked at by the public. Ridiculous analogy. These share prices can be found out on the London Stock Exchange website. That's a website that can be looked at. By the public. You were saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I guess no-one may be interested. I'm certainly not. But you were suggesting that this person should publish his own finances since he has published Lansdown's. However, all he has done is collate information that is already in the public domain. These share prices can be found out on the London Stock Exchange website. That's a website that can be looked at. By the public. You were saying? I was saying it was a ridiculous analogy, because it is. Apologies if that was unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinman-is-god Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 So if it's in the public domain, why is anyone interested? A film made to be looked at by the public. Ridiculous analogy. Despite the fact that it may not interest you, nor does it particularly interest me, there is no doubt that there is a demand for 'Rich Lists' and every time FourFourTwo do one, there is a lot of interest both in the media and public domain. If rich lists were not of interest, why would so many publications do it year in, year out? There must, by the fact that they do it year on year, be an interest otherwise it would not be in their interest to produce these lists would it? As the saying goes, the public gets what the public wants - and that's certainly true when it comes to the media, as any good media outlet will simply reflect the demand, and in this case, FourFourTwo readers clearly demand this, as if they didn't, they wouldn't produce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 They have to get their permission first No they don't! I once asked Steve Lansdown if he had given his permission to the Times Rich List and he told me that they don't even ask...He was not a happy bunny about either but theres nothing any of them can do as its in the public domain. Anyway, it makes no difference to any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Despite the fact that it may not interest you, nor does it particularly interest me, there is no doubt that there is a demand for 'Rich Lists' and every time FourFourTwo do one, there is a lot of interest both in the media and public domain. If rich lists were not of interest, why would so many publications do it year in, year out? There must, by the fact that they do it year on year, be an interest otherwise it would not be in their interest to produce these lists would it? As the saying goes, the public gets what the public wants - and that's certainly true when it comes to the media, as any good media outlet will simply reflect the demand, and in this case, FourFourTwo readers clearly demand this, as if they didn't, they wouldn't produce it. Sure. I just don't understand the interest. I also don't understand the interest in knowing which fake-tanned ape is boning Katie Price at the moment, but the amount of coverage it gets suggests there's a demand for that too. As I see it, someone's finances are their own affair, and all these lists do is make people think a chairman is so stupendously wealthy that he/she should pump even more of their hard-earned cash into a football club, because they can seemingly afford it. That's completely unfair, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinman-is-god Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Sure. I just don't understand the interest. I also don't understand the interest in knowing which fake-tanned ape is boning Katie Price at the moment, but the amount of coverage it gets suggests there's a demand for that too. As I see it, someone's finances are their own affair, and all these lists do is make people think a chairman is so stupendously wealthy that he/she should pump even more of their hard-earned cash into a football club, because they can seemingly afford it. That's completely unfair, in my opinion. The depressing reality about people today is that there is regularly a large interest in the lives of meaningless celebs and the private lives of others, and this inevitably leads to newspapers meeting this demand. In an ideal world people would care about world politics, economics and society, but more seem to care about some breast-implanted pointless person and the private finances of rich people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 As I see it, someone's finances are their own affair, and all these lists do is make people think a chairman is so stupendously wealthy that he/she should pump even more of their hard-earned cash into a football club, because they can seemingly afford it. That's completely unfair, in my opinion. Of course ones financial buisness should be kept 'in house' but wealth has always interested many of those who don't have it. Personally I don't care that Abramovic is a multi billionaire with a yatch worth 85 million that has solid gold taps or that Shiek Mohamid has 70 Rolls Royces but there are many that do care. There are and have been seriously rich men who have but much of their wealth into their football club. Jack Walker and Dave Whelan to name just two but that doesn't mean that just because Steve Lansdown is also seriously rich that its expected that he should put much of his fortune into Bristol City FC. I'm just happy that we have a self made man with obvious astute buisness acumen in charge at our club. That to me is more important that his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIZZYRED Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 See Keith Dawe is on there too! 67. Keith Dawe £32m Bristol City Age 59, last year £32m (63rd) Managers buying bad players must be galling for any board member, but perhaps particularly Keith Dawe. The Bristol City vice-chairman made his money in recruitment, specifically hiring staff for the computer industry. He owns 89% of Resource Solutions Group, which made a £4m profit on nearly £91.4m sales in the year to June 2008. That was after paying out directors' pay of £1.9m. We value the company at around £30m, putting a price of nearly £27m on Dawe's stake. Past salaries take him to £32m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I was saying it was a ridiculous analogy, because it is. Apologies if that was unclear. Ah, OK, I see what you are saying now. You are saying it is a ridiculous analogy to equate Jonathan Ross who is putting into the public domain information (the film) that is in the public domain, andThis journalist who is putting into the public domain information (share price) that is in the public domain There's no need to apologise. I think it is absolutely clear what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 very dissappointed ...............Expect much better from the 6th biggest city in England. Common ar steve.....' must do better' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 very dissappointed ...............Expect much better from the 6th biggest city in England. Common ar steve.....' must do better' It's not I'm afraid, more like 10th. "Greater Bristol" is the 9th biggest conurbation, with an esimated half million souls in the 2001 census. As for the rich list, not really sure where the point to it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Hucker Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I surprised that the village of Churchill is not represented on the Rich List ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Ah, OK, I see what you are saying now. You are saying it is a ridiculous analogy to equate Jonathan Ross who is putting into the public domain information (the film) that is in the public domain, andThis journalist who is putting into the public domain information (share price) that is in the public domain There's no need to apologise. I think it is absolutely clear what you mean. Good. I'm glad you've now seen the ridiculous nature of your analogy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Considering he initially set up business in the front room of his Clifton bungalow, Lansdown has been stunningly successful in financial services. Hargreaves Lansdown floated on the stock market in May 2007 and, defying the downturn, is now worth £1.01 billion. Even after his recent shares sale, Lansdown retains a stake worth £301m. He sold £75m worth of shares in the float and with other sales (including the recent £47m sale) and dividends (£30m plus in the last ten years) is worth £370m." Well done Steve Lansdown. Let's hope he can bring the same type of success to Bristol City FC by establishing us as a top flight football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanhamreds Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I surprised that the village of Churchill is not represented on the Rich List ... , The Gaffer,the mercedes and the paid for pad he must be in the top ten.....surely!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 interesting, so he's gained £90m in a year, not bad going even after taking in to account the selling of £47m shares So, we're in the biggest recession in living memory and £90m is only enough to take you up 3 places in the football rich list. Just shows how detached football is with the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifty Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to throw a spanner in the works of the apparent hate for rich lists - I find them quite interesting. I like seeing how the wealthiest can make or lose millions in a year. I also think it's interesting how they make their money too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Just to throw a spanner in the works of the apparent hate for rich lists - I find them quite interesting. I like seeing how the wealthiest can make or lose millions in a year. I also think it's interesting how they make their money too. Reminds me of a court case involving Sting some years ago when his then accountant had fiddled/pinched £6m from Stings estate. Sting didn't even know the money was missing! I can't remember how the theft came to light but remember thinking at the time that if I lost £6, I notice right away. It really is unimaginable to the ordinary man in the street that someone could lose that much money and not even notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.